Having read some comments on the Wesley Snipes thread that ran along the lines of "Liberals always want to raise taxes" and "liberals always want to tax the rich more" I thought it was about time we found out what liberals really think with a poll.

As a financially independent and moderately comfortable person who is nominally a liberal in many senses - I think the taxes in my country are more or less right (and I pay more tax than an american of similar means I'm sure).
My issue is how they are spent.

Conservatives - feel free to contribute to this thread, but can I kindly ask you not to answer the poll and skew the results - that way you may find out what us liberals really think instead of just confirming what you think we think

Cheers

I voted for taxing the rich more, but perhaps everyone should be, I'm not sure. I am pretty sure it should begin with the rich, though.

I think you're pretty much correct. The problem is spending... Particularly on our inflated military budget. And besides things like war and other unneeded spending is the fact that the government spends it inefficiently, besides just spending it in bad areas.

On the whole, the government is not going to change it's spending habits anytime soon, whether Republicans or Democrats are in power. Which is why I want taxes raised. I would definitely prefer more carefully spent money on the government's part, but I don't expect that to happen. There are important things we need tax money on that can't be left waiting, IMO.

The better off take care of the less of. Isn't that what compassion is based apon ?

How is it fair that the rich, who work and save their money to get rich, have to pay more taxes than the guy who quit school and works at McDonalds? Why punish the rich for working hard?

So rich people are harder workers, and non-rich people quit school and work at McDonalds? :confused:

I chose "other". I think taxing a persons labour is wrong i'd support taxing goods and services, capital gains, investment income etc all at the same rate.

So rich people are harder workers, and non-rich people quit school and work at McDonalds? :confused:

I feel this description is more true in the USA where there is more entrepreneurship and less "old money" passed from generations before like in Britain. If you look at some of the richest folks in the USA, you'll find that most are self made.

How is it fair that the rich, who work and save their money to get rich, have to pay more taxes than the guy who quit school and works at McDonalds? The people who benefit from a system should pay for it.

Personally, I get very little benefit from most government services - such as international trade agreements, military presence world wide, etc - and I have to put up with the competition for land and other resources from the people who do.

If people don't want to get rich, they don't have to - then they won't have to pay those high taxes either. Or they could become hedge fund managers, and be taxed at a lower rate on their hundreds of millions than I am on my thousands.

btw: Last I looked, of the top ten richest people in the US five were heirs of Sam Walton. Are we supposed to believe they got rich by working hard and saving their money ? In my area, WalMart has led to a net loss of jobs, net loss of health care, and a net reduction in income for people in my income class.
I feel this description is more true in the USA where there is more entrepreneurship and less "old money" passed from generations before like in Britain. That is yesterday's news, if it was ever true. The US lags most Western industrial countries now, in class mobility, and the gap to be jumped is growing.

Even back in the better times, I recall a survey that noted the most common correlative factor, best predictor, of someone's becoming a President, Vice-President, or CEO of a large US corporation, was marrying the daughter of someone already holding one of those jobs.

How is it fair that the rich, who work and save their money to get rich, have to pay more taxes than the guy who quit school and works at McDonalds? Why punish the rich for working hard?


If you keep a-talkin this way,
me and you is gonna havter wrassle.

How is it fair that the rich, who work and save their money to get rich, have to pay more taxes than the guy who quit school and works at McDonalds? Why punish the rich for working hard?

I would agree with this if you could show me that say, a black woman brought up in a background of poverty with its associated problems (poor housing, healthcare, and education) had the same opportunities for betterment than a white male brought up in a relatively affluent middle class environment.

I'm not saying she has NO opportunity - just that it is significantly reduced - and importantly her reduced opportunity is not likely to be correlated to her choices - moreso that lack of opportunity is correlated to lack of available choices.

For example what if she has no choice but to go leave school and work at Mac Donalds due to having to help pay for medical bills for a sick parent or sibling - these are good conservative family values - however by not spending tax money on universal healthcare or a decent public education system and instead throw it away on "faith-based initiatives" and un-necessary military spending, you rob potentially talented people of opportunity regardless of the choices they make.

If success was simply a matter of the choices we make, then fair enough - but I doubt that anyone would be quite so naive as to seriously propose that.

I feel this description is more true in the USA where there is more entrepreneurship and less "old money" passed from generations before like in Britain. If you look at some of the richest folks in the USA, you'll find that most are self made.

I don't. To me it seems as if, relatively, economic opportunity is shrinking as generations go by in Americans. And as that happens there is less opportunity for someone to go from poor to rich. So even if most people who are wealthy today were actually self made (which I don't think is actually mathematically possible with the increasing wealth gap), remember that they got rich in circumstances that are no longer available today. For one example, it is a lot harder to become a M.D. in America these days.

I'm not sure quite what you mean by "old money". As in a Rockefeller? (that is what I tend to think of since reading Old Money by Nelson W. Aldrich /plug). I assume you meant anyone with parents who can provide for them though.

It is becoming pretty daunting to be self made in the sense that you go from a poor family to being rich. For the majority, paying for college on their own is quite hard. It's going to take those people longer, at the least. And they were already at a disadvantage because they went to worse schools, and on the whole tend to have less academically oriented upbringings.

I've been poor. So poor that I could only afford to eat 1 meal a day. I worked my ass off to get where I am. I saw my neighbors sitting on their porches collect food stamps and other welfare benefits while I worked a 12 hr shift.

My taxes paid for them to sit on that porch. I don't even wanna hear about no opportunities. The unemployment office offers all kinds of free classes. The gvmt will pay for child care. You can get student loans to go to school. There are opportunities if you get off your ass and find them.

Anyone ever see The Pursuit of Happyness?

How is it fair that the rich, who work and save their money to get rich, have to pay more taxes than the guy who quit school and works at McDonalds? Why punish the rich for working hard?

Maybe they worked hard, maybe not. In any case, they are benefitting to a far greater degree from the conditions our society has established. It's only fair that they give back to the community. There is also a political danger associated with great wealth.

Move the decimal point over to the left one and tax Everyone at 10%, the poor can deal with it, they deal with being poor as is. The rich can deal with it, but there should be major implacations for being late, like a extra 5% taxation just because they have money.

That's lame. 10% of a poor person's income takes food out of their mouths. 10% of a rich person's income is a brake job on the Bentley.

I would agree with this if you could show me that say, a black woman brought up in a background of poverty with its associated problems (poor housing, healthcare, and education) had the same opportunities for betterment than a white male brought up in a relatively affluent middle class environment.

I'm not saying she has NO opportunity - just that it is significantly reduced - and importantly her reduced opportunity is not likely to be correlated to her choices - more so that lack of opportunity is correlated to lack of available choices.

For example what if she has no choice but to go leave school and work at Mac Donalds due to having to help pay for medical bills for a sick parent or sibling - these are good conservative family values - however by not spending tax money on universal healthcare or a decent public education system and instead throw it away on "faith-based initiatives" and un-necessary military spending, you rob potentially talented people of opportunity regardless of the choices they make.

If success was simply a matter of the choices we make, then fair enough - but I doubt that anyone would be quite so naive as to seriously propose that.I agree 100% with your well expressed post, but add (to keep it more related to taxes, government program finance etc.):

The funding of pre-college education in US by the local government instead of nationally, is the main way the rich, who can afford to buy home where the schools are good, insure that their children, by and large, are the rich of the next generation even those of much lower natural intelligence than the average in the rat-infested under-funded urban schools.

The kids going to these poor urban schools do learn the practical things most will need later in life: - How to keep a rat from biting a sleeping child; how to use under age kid to deliver drugs; to be sure to collect the money before doing the trick; etc.

I favor federal taxes, not real-estate taxes paying for all teacher salaries. (And for their education if they sign up to teach for few years at the average starting salary of the school they agree to serve in.) The jobs available would be filled by an "inverse Dutch auction." I.e. if no one qualified is willing to teach in poor school "P" at salary $a then after about a week, the salary offered for teachers in school "P" is increased to $a+$1000, etc. When salary $b has several wanting the job, it goes to the teacher with the best standing on some national exam. Or some such plan which tends to send the best teacher to the school which need them the most. (And that too is determined by national exams of their students.)

Also it would be wise to have teachers in elementary school stay with the students as they move up thru the grades, as is done in Norway (and others in Scandinavia, I think). That way little time is wasted each year for the teacher to learn who needs help with what, etc. but much more importantly it fixes responsibility on one teacher as she cannot just pass the problem kid on to the next grade teacher - she is the next grade teacher.

The teacher gets a possibly-large financial reward if her group of students scores much higher on the 6 grade national exam than they did on the 1st grade exam they took 6 years earlier. If very large, (say > 50% of her annual salary) this reward could be partially added to her pension fund and is linearly proportional to the improvement her class made in those 6 years. My ex-wife was a good Norwegian elementary school teacher - received "thank you" Christmas cards for some students annually for 35 years. Many of her students are now highly successful - one has offered financial aid if she ever needs it as "She made him what he is today" - he states. In the US system no teacher is responsible for anything - just pass the kid along to be someone else’s problem for a year and there is no financial reward for doing very well by the students.

I just mention this even though I know it is pointless. - The US is too arrogant to learn from others. :( (Same reason US was sucked into Vietnam War even though the French, who could speak the language, of "French-Indo-China" had been defeated. etc. for many other examples of this arrogance as also is expressed in "the WORLD series" baseball title.)

PS One of the reasons why US is going down the tubes economically is that having a large part of the students graduating high school qualified only to offer manual labor to the market place is no longer desirable in a world that is "post industrial" and wanting brain power. US is losing too many good brains to compete as they happen to be in black bodies or have had parents that could not afford to live where the good schools are. - I am not a "bleeding heart liberal" - I want to stem the US slide down for economic reasons.- Falling dollar buys on half as many Brazilian real as it did four or five years ago and that slide is accelerating. More related at Thread: "How Stupid can US voters Be?" Also all my grand children still live in the USA - I want them to have a future.

well, it is a flat tax, and no. that 10% is cable.

People who have worked hard to become rich should know what it was like to start off. Therefore they should be more inclined to help, than those who are struggling.

I've been poor. So poor that I could only afford to eat 1 meal a day. I worked my ass off to get where I am. I saw my neighbors sitting on their porches collect food stamps and other welfare benefits while I worked a 12 hr shift.

My taxes paid for them to sit on that porch. I don't even wanna hear about no opportunities. The unemployment office offers all kinds of free classes. The gvmt will pay for child care. You can get student loans to go to school. There are opportunities if you get off your ass and find them.

Anyone ever see The Pursuit of Happyness?

Congratulations - its good to see someone do well against the odds.

I have to say though that you have a rather simplistic view for someone who claims to come from that sort of background.

You can't - in all seriousness and with a straight face - try and tell us that you REALLY think that ALL people who are poor deserve to be poor because it's a simple result of thier own laziness and stupidity?

You can't - in all seriousness and with a straight face - try and tell us that you REALLY think that everyone on social security lives so well off it that they have no motivation to better themselves?

You can't - in all seriousness and with a straight face - try and tell us that you REALLY think that because a few people genuinely do abuse social security that we shouldn't pay it to ANYONE?

if you can answer yes to any of these questions - please enlighten me as to why you think that your way would make the country a better place

Taxation is necessary, in many cases the alternatives are worse, someone needs to be paid to do things for the public, the things that aren't affectively done by a cooperation.

I've been poor. So poor that I could only afford to eat 1 meal a day. I worked my ass off to get where I am. I saw my neighbors sitting on their porches collect food stamps and other welfare benefits while I worked a 12 hr shift.

My taxes paid for them to sit on that porch. So you'd be in favor of raising taxes on the rich, then, in that poll ?

Considering that the top hedge fund managers in the US made more than one billion dollars each, last year, and if they rigged it right paid less than 15% of that in taxes - you paid close to 15% in Social Security alone.

Like I said in my other thread, a flat-tax for everyone is fair in my opinion.
I don't get jealous of people that have earned more than I have.

Like I said in my other thread, a flat-tax for everyone is fair in my opinion.
I don't get jealous of people that have earned more than I have. So you are in favor of raising taxes on the rich, up to the point where they are paying the same percentage of all their income with the same deductions as the rest of us ?

You would, for example, remove the cap on Social Security levies and apply them to all income regardless of source ?

Like I said in my other thread, a flat-tax for everyone is fair in my opinion.
I don't get jealous of people that have earned more than I have.

Neither do I - indeed when I received my first ever pay-packet that informed me that I now earned enough to have reached the top tax band in my country, it was a source of a certain amount of pride for me - not despair - after all I had to earn it to pay it

You see, I feel that by making a contribution both in terms of money and in terms of my interaction with the democratic processes of the country I can make a genuine contribution to those who might not have had the same lucky breaks as I have had - and to MYSELF too!!! (and beleive me one ot two of the breaks I have had have been tremendously fortunate)

In contrast it seems that you are terribly afraid and terribly hopeless

You seem terrified of people's jealousy of you and your stash and have convinced yourself they want to steal it either legitimately through taxes or thtough other means - I don't doubt you are armed to the teeth to protect yourself from these phantom enemies (am I right?)

You are hopless because you see no hope for the poor and less fortunate for you - even to the point of actually blaming them for being poor and less fortunate - you see no contribution that you can make - even from something as unimportant as money (i.e. tax) that could possibly ever help them - when in reality its not them that are hopless - its you - sorry!

I pity you and all those like you

Like I said in my other thread, a flat-tax for everyone is fair in my opinion.
I don't get jealous of people that have earned more than I have.

it all depends on how you want to define fair.

Sorry Billy - I'm rubbish at reading long posts - particularly when I'm staying at home on friday to save money and eating pizza and drinking fine Ale :)
it deserves some feedback as there's some good points raised...

like this one:


Also it would be wise to have teachers in elementary school stay with the students as they move up thru the grades, as is done in Norway (and others in Scandinavia, I think). That way little time is wasted each year for the teacher to learn who needs help with what, etc. but much more importantly it fixes responsibility on one teacher as she cannot just pass the problem kid on to the next grade teacher - she is the next grade teacher..

what a frankly fucking awesome idea! - the scandanavians really have things sussed out



this arrogance as also is expressed in "the WORLD series" baseball title. .

common misconception - it's called the WORLD series because it was originally sponsored by a newspaper called.......drrrrrrum rrrrrrrrrroll.....The World

Sorry Billy - I'm rubbish at reading long posts - ...Too bad. I tend to make long and I hope thoughtful ones, not the more common short quips. Some know this and do read my posts and I do not care about those without thought capacity, but often correcting their nonsense is a cause for me posting.* You strike me a thoughtful poster. That is why I said "Too bad."
----------------
* Here is latest nonsense correcting post:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1833979&postcount=14
It was a "stubborn case." I had to do it twice in same thread. See:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1834023&postcount=18

the fact that we have rich and poor shows that the government has failed, giving it any more money would be stupid, the answer is for the workers to simply stop paying taxes and boycott anything which would profit the rich.

The gvmt has failed???

I bought food stamps from a friend. She needed gas money to visit her boyfriend in jail. He was in jail for beating her.
I loaned money to another friend so she could get diapers for her baby. The next day she showed me the sweet new leather jacket she bought.
I had a co-worker with 9 kids, whining about how her food stamp benefits were cut so she was gonna quit working.

If you are poor, quit having babies you can't afford!
If you are poor, quit spending money on new clothes you don't need!

A LOT of poor people are poor because of the dumb ass decisions they make.
A LOT of rich people are rich because of the smart decisions they make.

Rich people already pay more taxes than others. If its a flat percentage, its fair. Rich people donate money out the butt. They may not do it cause they care, they may do it as a tax write off, but they still do it.

I think a lot of you need to spend time with those poor people and see where that money goes. Its amazing how many of them can afford beer, cigarettes, and cable TV.

You seem terrified of people's jealousy of you and your stash and have convinced yourself they want to steal it either legitimately through taxes or thtough other means - I don't doubt you are armed to the teeth to protect yourself from these phantom enemies (am I right?)

You are hopless because you see no hope for the poor and less fortunate for you - even to the point of actually blaming them for being poor and less fortunate - you see no contribution that you can make - even from something as unimportant as money (i.e. tax) that could possibly ever help them - when in reality its not them that are hopless - its you - sorry!

I pity you and all those like you

LOL, I make 38K a year, I'm not in the upper class. :rolleyes:

And you make the assumption that the only way to help the poor and needy is through paying taxes to an inefficient government.
There is such things as personal donations and philanthropy; that's where people give directly to the needy minus the government step.......
http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2007/June/200706261522251CJsamohT0.8012354.html
Oh ! "gasp!" what's that !?!?!?! $200+ BILLION in personal donations !

I don't know about you, but I'd MUCH rather donate to the poor directly myself, then have the government take
money from me and redistribute it.

If something is really worth doing as a society, why wouldn't you want the government to do it? It's not necessarily any more inefficient than a private agency, and it's answerable to the people. It's not just about the needy, it's about investing in this country, it's people, it's infrastructure, it's energy supply, space exploration...

The gvmt has failed???

I bought food stamps from a friend. She needed gas money to visit her boyfriend in jail. He was in jail for beating her.
I loaned money to another friend so she could get diapers for her baby. The next day she showed me the sweet new leather jacket she bought.
I had a co-worker with 9 kids, whining about how her food stamp benefits were cut so she was gonna quit working.

If you are poor, quit having babies you can't afford!
If you are poor, quit spending money on new clothes you don't need!

A LOT of poor people are poor because of the dumb ass decisions they make.
A LOT of rich people are rich because of the smart decisions they make.

Rich people already pay more taxes than others. If its a flat percentage, its fair. Rich people donate money out the butt. They may not do it cause they care, they may do it as a tax write off, but they still do it.

I think a lot of you need to spend time with those poor people and see where that money goes. Its amazing how many of them can afford beer, cigarettes, and cable TV.

1. food stamps: if the government implemented a livable minimum wage then she wouldnt need food stamps.

2. jail: instead of attempting to rehabilitate him and teach him that violence is wrong he is stuck in jail, wasting resources and fostering contempt for "that bitch who put me away" and will only do it again when he gets out.

3. poor money management: the government failed to teach her any common sense economics in school.

4. excessive children: ill bet she grew up in a sheltered religious family and got taught 'abstinence only' contraception at school.

5. food stamps vs work: if the government pays someone more to sit on their arse than to work then who is really to blame there? the mother who is struggling to get by and ends up with less money to feed her kids if she has a job, or the government that takes away for benefits for contributing back to society?

6. rich vs poor: no, people are rich and poor because of the families they were born into.

7. poor people: when youve lost absolutely everything, had to borrow money you dont have just to keep the pigs from kidnapping you and resorting to dealing drugs as your only means of getting by, then you tell me that booze and smokes are a waste of money, fact is they are the only happiness left between you and a bullet.

The gvmt has failed???

I bought food stamps from a friend. She needed gas money to visit her boyfriend in jail. He was in jail for beating her.
I loaned money to another friend so she could get diapers for her baby. The next day she showed me the sweet new leather jacket she bought.
I had a co-worker with 9 kids, whining about how her food stamp benefits were cut so she was gonna quit working.

If you are poor, quit having babies you can't afford!
If you are poor, quit spending money on new clothes you don't need!

A LOT of poor people are poor because of the dumb ass decisions they make.
A LOT of rich people are rich because of the smart decisions they make.

Rich people already pay more taxes than others. If its a flat percentage, its fair. Rich people donate money out the butt. They may not do it cause they care, they may do it as a tax write off, but they still do it.

I think a lot of you need to spend time with those poor people and see where that money goes. Its amazing how many of them can afford beer, cigarettes, and cable TV.


yet more fear and hopelessness on your part.

I don't deny that impoverished people make bad decisions - but doesn't everyone?

In my country, righty's make a huge deal over people who "sponge" off social security benefits - and doubtless there ARE a few lazy scumbags who do.
HOWEVER the reality is that (according to our version of the IRS) businesses and the rich cheating on their taxes accounts for a tenfold defecit to the public purse in comparison to welfare cheats - furthermore it would be significantly cheaper for the government/IRS to crack down on those abuses - the problem is ithat it doesn't make for nearly such sensational newspaper headlines - especially if your newspapers are owned by Rupert Murdoch (AKA Fox news), and the government is far more afraid of a few wealthy individuals than it is of a whole bunch of poor voters.
I'd be very surprised if the situation were significantly different in the USA.

I ask you directly - do you really think that the points you have raised are a genuinely valid excuse for giving up on providing opportunity for the less fortunate? or do you just not give a fuck about anyone?

do you really think that the points you have raised are a genuinely valid excuse for giving up on providing opportunity for the less fortunate? or do you just not give a fuck about anyone?

What a nice, loaded question. If you don't believe in xyz government program which may or not actually work, you must not give a fuck about other people. Nice.

I had to vote "other" because "tax the rich more" is not really well defined for me.

(1) Whether a tax is justified depends on what the revenues will be used to accomplish. Taxing more because the army needs more bullets is one thing. Taxing more because we want to buy bicycles for every fish in the world...that's a bad tax.

(2) Who are "the rich"? From the perspective of the average American someone earning $100K per year may be "rich", but in Manhattan that person is barely able to pay his rent. "The rich" is obfuscating to me...it's a tag one can use to make most people think it means "someone other than me who can afford to lose that money."

(3) How much more? This is related to point (1), but taking a man earning $10 million annually and forcing him to pay an annual tax of $5 million is fine by me. Making him pay $4.5 million is quite a different thing.

Personally I think the U.S. marginal tax structure is about as good as we are likely to do, but I imagine it could be improved with tweaks. Those tweaks might well involve a net tax increase on the rich, or it might lead to a tax increase on the middle class...hard to say.

Are we talking generally about the USA, or generalizing about ideal taxation schemes anywhere?

A flat sales tax in the USA, with no other taxes levied and no complicated codes and loopholes would be the most equitable. This would, however, put hundreds of thousands of accountants, attorneys, and government agents out of work. We should subsidize their retraining for more productive careers.

What a nice, loaded question. If you don't believe in xyz government program which may or not actually work, you must not give a fuck about other people. Nice.


I would request that you give me a fucking break my old rubber wellington.

Unless you are entirely brainless you would realise that I'm merely challenging the fellow to give us some thing a little more substantial that tired old conservative bullshit rhetoric thats big on talk but light on fact to solidify his position.

I guess we won't be talking again - see ya!

I would request that you give me a fucking break my old rubber wellington.

Unless you are entirely brainless you would realise that I'm merely challenging the fellow to give us some thing a little more substantial that tired old conservative bullshit rhetoric thats big on talk but light on fact to solidify his position.

I guess we won't be talking again - see ya!

Oh, sorry if I actually took you seriously. I've met plenty of people who completely mean that sentiment ("If you don't believe in xyz government program which may or not actually work, you must not give a fuck about other people") in an entirely non-joking fashion. Sarcasm doesn't translate well over the internet sometimes. :shrug:

....I ask you directly - do you really think that the points you have raised are a genuinely valid excuse for giving up on providing opportunity for the less fortunate? or do you just not give a fuck about anyone?

I'm all for providing opportunity. I took advantage of every legal opportunity that came my way. It would have been easier to deal drugs, but I had a child to think about. I was not about to turn him into a welfare baby. I was not about to let him think it was an ok way to live.

I don't give a fuck about people who wallow in self pity, accept the cards dealt them, and blame others for the dumb ass things they have done. And I don't give a fuck about you. :p

Personally I think the U.S. marginal tax structure is about as good as we are likely to do, It doesn't cover the bills. We're going deeper in debt every year.

And the accumulation of wealth in the upper few points of the economy is starting to change the structure of it. Class mobility is dropping. Home ownership - equity - is dropping. Wages are dropping. Pawnshops and check-cashing outfits are a boom industry.

And it was not always so. The tax structure we had in the decades after WWII worked very well. We fought the Cold War, built an entire freeway system, set up a bunch of parks, put a half million soldiers through college and into houses, created a bunch of very wealthy men - what was the problem with that setup that it was dismantled ?
A flat sales tax in the USA, with no other taxes levied and no complicated codes and loopholes would be the most equitable. Taxes the poor, who must buy, heavily, the rich shop elsewhere (or don't bother - rich people don't need to buy much except services - loophole city there).

....(2) Who are "the rich"? From the perspective of the average American someone earning $100K per year may be "rich", but in Manhattan that person is barely able to pay his rent. "The rich" is obfuscating to me...it's a tag one can use to make most people think it means "someone other than me who can afford to lose that money.".....

a very valid point. Cazzo's 38k a year is what a lot of families live on. I raised my son on half that.

...(2) Who are "the rich"? From the perspective of the average American someone earning $100K per year may be "rich", but in Manhattan that person is barely able to pay his rent. "The rich" is obfuscating to me...it's a tag one can use to make most people think it means "someone other than me who can afford to lose that money.".....
”
a very valid point. Cazzo's 38k a year is what a lot of families live on. I raised my son on half that. The upper 20% of the yearly incomes. There's no obfuscation about it. Quite possibly only the very rich can afford to live in Manhattan - that's part of the natural order of things: service gets expensive, talented folks set up shop in Des Moines, Des Moines becomes a better place.

Oh, sorry if I actually took you seriously. I've met plenty of people who completely mean that sentiment ("If you don't believe in xyz government program which may or not actually work, you must not give a fuck about other people") in an entirely non-joking fashion. Sarcasm doesn't translate well over the internet sometimes. :shrug:

Ok seems like we understand each other :)

I'm all for exploring alternatives to "traditional" (if that's the right word) welfare/social security solutions, but I won't just give up on them because of a few abusers -I'll never give in to the kind of hoplessness the other poster already has given in to.

If I had that kind of attitude I may as well abolish law enforcement because of the minority of corrupt coppers, abolish democracy because of corrupt politicians, and abolish the armed forces because of the actions of a minority of soldiers.

ps - you ever notice how many conservatives who are positively rabid over welfare spending suddenly turn a blind eye to corrupt cops, and out of cointrol soldiers because they have such a fucking hardon for authoritarianism?

ps - you ever notice how many conservatives who are positively rabid over welfare spending suddenly turn a blind eye to corrupt cops, and out of cointrol soldiers because they have such a fucking hardon for authoritarianism?

LOL, where'd that come from ???

Welfare's necessary for those who honestly deserve it.
I'd consider myself center-right, but if a cop's crooked he needs to be punished beyond the usual sentences. A civilized society can't afford to have corrupt law enforcers.

I. And I don't give a fuck about you. :p

I admire your balls me old left handed leg spinner - in a totally non gay way of course :D

I have to say though that every single post you have made in this thread is FILLED with ANGER and RESENTMENT and FEAR of and for poor people - go back - read them - you know I'm right.

I have to ask you where does all that all come from?

I live in one of the poorest cities in the UK right now and I see a lot of people who live on welfare - but at the same time I WORK with people from the same kinds of backgrounds as the welfare spongers - and these guys are doing there very best to make something of thier lives, and without a little governmwent welfare assistance for these people that task would be that much harder.
When I see that I haveto ask myself - who am I to begrudge a few bucks in tax to help someone with talent acheive their potential?

why are you soooooooo scared of that?

I'm not scared. I'm angry that people feel sorry for them. That hard working people need to pay for generations of slackers. If someone needs help, fine, but unless they are physically unable to work they don't need to live on it. I'm angry about the sense of entitlement you think they have a right to.

Go live on a reservation and look where your tax dollars go and what they do with it. You will lose all sense of empathy quickly

I'm not scared. I'm angry that people feel sorry for them. That hard working people need to pay for generations of slackers. If someone needs help, fine, but unless they are physically unable to work they don't need to live on it. I'm angry about the sense of entitlement you think they have a right to.

Go live on a reservation and look where your tax dollars go and what they do with it. You will lose all sense of empathy quickly

look i have met people who needed government aid and though they worked there asses off so they wouldn't need it they couldn't. Do you think it right to refer to these people as slackers.

I'm not scared. I'm angry that people feel sorry for them. That hard working people need to pay for generations of slackers. If someone needs help, fine, but unless they are physically unable to work they don't need to live on it. I'm angry about the sense of entitlement you think they have a right to.

Go live on a reservation and look where your tax dollars go and what they do with it. You will lose all sense of empathy quickly

What about my sister who has borderline personality disorder, OCD, and bipolar. She is physically able to work, yes, but she not stable enough to even when medicated. Even the slightest criticsim is seen an attack on her. She cant sit still, she has wild mood swings and can at times be downright evil According to you she should get a job, but she can't.

Or how about people in an area where the economy has bascially collapsed. It wasn't their fault all the jobs moved away. Now they are stuck becuase if they move they wouldn't be able to get a palce to live.

Those individuals who can survive competition should.

Those who can't won't.

Nature is a harsh mistress.

Get over it.

If your own natural abilities are inadequate to the singular task of ensuring your personal survival, what makes you think you possess the natural ability to make a claim on my more successful natural abilities to survive -- as if blood sucking leaches are an important part of my own personal survival strategy?

Those individuals who can survive competition should.

Those who can't won't.

Nature is a harsh mistress.

Get over it.

If your own natural abilities are inadequate to the singular task of ensuring your personal survival, what makes you think you possess the natural ability to make a claim on my more successful natural abilities to survive -- as if blood sucking leaches are an important part of my own personal survival strategy?

You're over-simplifying the issue - if it was a simple matter of those with the greasest talent and abilities rising to the top regardless of background then you might have a point - but I seriously doubt if you really beleive that fantasy. It is a convenient self-serving lie though.

We used to beleive that kind of natural order stuff in Britain a few hundred years ago before the industrial revolution but we came to realise that it was in fact pure weapons grade baloneyum, and the cost to a society of NOT providing at the very least some kind of basic welfare was far greater that biting the bullet and doing something about it.
To be fair though - the USA is in many cultural and political respects a couple of hundred years behind the rest of the world and europe in particular - simply due to the fact that you're a young nation - so given time, if you don't self-destruct in the process - you'll get there.

Changing the subject slightly, why is it that so many rightys are so rabidly against spending money on public services like welfare, education and health, While at the same time they keep suspiciously silent when their governments are ejaculating hundreds of billion of dollars in the attempt to "protect" us from the "deadly threat" posed by 8 guys, 2 donkeys, and a goat -aka Al Qaida
It seems such a bizzarre double standard to me.

...A flat sales tax in the USA, with no other taxes levied and no complicated codes and loopholes would be the most equitable. This would, however, put hundreds of thousands of accountants, attorneys, and government agents out of work. ...I favor a progressive tax system, but agree that making it simple is desirable as then the economic loss associated with:
(1) many too many lawyers being paid for needless work. (Government wealfare for them, in truth.)
(2) many too many ways for those lawyer to earn their keep by sheltering income of those rich enough to afford them.

All this waste and loss of revenue could be avoided and taxes for the average American could be lower;

However, a flat tax would not achieve this so long as there are so many different types of incomes and so many different types of deduction.

I have given the question of tax design a little thought and suggested a better plan, I think. However, I am sure my effort is still with flaws so I started a thread asking for people to point them out. That thread a mod moved to forum seldom visited for an entirely false reason as several have noted in the thread, but stubbornly no mod has the balls to put it in the Business and Economics thread where I and others who posted in it think it belongs. See plan at:

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1792841&postcount=1

and add your thoughts here or there with link to other location.

...Or how about people in an area where the economy has bascially collapsed. It wasn't their fault all the jobs moved away. Now they are stuck becuase if they move they wouldn't be able to get a palce to live.

That's crap. I had my $800 tax rebate money, rented a U-Haul, moved me and my 2 yr old from NE to MI, got a cheap hotel room, filed for unemployment, found a cheap apt, found daycare, found a job all in 10 days.

That's crap. I had my $800 tax rebate money, rented a U-Haul, moved me and my 2 yr old from NE to MI, got a cheap hotel room, filed for unemployment, found a cheap apt, found daycare, found a job all in 10 days.

Yeah, and you had $800 dollars to do it. Imagine doing it with nothing. Imagine doing it when you already have a mortgage to pay. Imagine doing it when your unemployment ran out becuase you were on layoff for a year and they kept promising to reopen the plant. or what if you were disabled for a year thanks to an accident and have used up your savings to keep your head above water. What if you are the primary caregiver for a loved one who is dying. Not everybody is in the same boat. The sooner you realize that the sooner you'll sound less like an idiot.

If your own natural abilities are inadequate to the singular task of ensuring your personal survival, what makes you think you possess the natural ability to make a claim on my more successful natural abilities to survive I bet I can set up a system under which my natural abilities earn me big money and yours have to sleep under a bridge.

Economic and social systems don't just appear, like the weather. They are set up, and defended. And if they are set up to make life hard for some people, adn these people are prevented by force from changing that setup, the people who benefit from them and defend them have an obligation to ameliorate.

Yeah, and you had $800 dollars to do it. Imagine doing it with nothing. Imagine doing it when you already have a mortgage to pay. Imagine doing it when your unemployment ran out becuase you were on layoff for a year and they kept promising to reopen the plant. or what if you were disabled for a year thanks to an accident and have used up your savings to keep your head above water. What if you are the primary caregiver for a loved one who is dying. Not everybody is in the same boat. The sooner you realize that the sooner you'll sound less like an idiot.

That was a tax rebate. You know, the money the government already stole from her. :rolleyes:

Not that this thread is closed yet, but so far the results show that by a margin of 2-1, Liberals do not support raising taxes for the rich.

No Liberals at all support an overall rise in taxes

I would suggest that we have successfully busted a myth about liberals.

Thanks

I would suggest that we have successfully busted a myth about liberals.

Perhaps a myth about the liberals here, but not necessarily about liberals in general. Not that I'm suggesting that your myth is true for liberals in general, just pointing out that you'd need something better than this like a compilation of what most Democrats in office want to do with taxes. Although at the same time, the opposing side would need something similar to prove their point too. :shrug:

Perhaps a myth about the liberals here, but not necessarily about liberals in general. Not that I'm suggesting that your myth is true for liberals in general, just pointing out that you'd need something better than this like a compilation of what most Democrats in office want to do with taxes. Although at the same time, the opposing side would need something similar to prove their point too. :shrug:

your right that its not necessarily a myth - its hard to generalise on such a large group of people - but certainly in my experience of every "liberal" I have ever met it is the case that they don't necessarily favour higher taxes or explicitly taxing the rich more - hence the reason for the poll in the first place - I certainly wasn't in the slightest bit surprised when I checked the results.

I think that one fundamental difference between conservatives and liberals on taxation, is that conservatives tend oppose any raise in taxation regardless of context - in contrast liberals would tend to look at the justification for it and decide on a case by case basis.